Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28274216›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2017

Primary care physicians' educational needs and learning preferences in end of life care: A focus group study in the UK.

Lucy Ellen Selman, Lisa Jane Brighton, Vicky Robinson, Rob George, Shaheen A Khan, Rachel Burman, Jonathan Koffman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Pediatric palliative care in the medical neighborhood for children with medical complexity.Families, systems & health : the journal of collaborative family healthcare · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Now Gosport: what next?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lucy Ellen SelmanUniversity of Bristol, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. lucy.selman@bristol.ac.uk.
Lisa Jane BrightonKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE59PJ, UK.
Vicky RobinsonKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE59PJ, UK.
Rob GeorgeKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE59PJ, UK.
Shaheen A KhanGuy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, SE19RT, UK.
Rachel BurmanKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Jonathan KoffmanKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE59PJ, UK.
Cicely Saunders International · GBKing's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care physicians (General Practitioners (GPs)) play a pivotal role in providing end of life care (EoLC). However, many lack confidence in this area, and the quality of EoLC by GPs can be problematic. Evidence regarding educational needs, learning preferences and the acceptability of evaluation methods is needed to inform the development and testing of EoLC education. This study therefore aimed to explore GPs' EoLC educational needs and preferences for learning and evaluation.

methodsA qualitative focus group study was conducted with qualified GPs and GP trainees in the UK. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed thematically. Expert review of the coding frame and dual coding of transcripts maximised rigour.

resultsTwenty-eight GPs (10 fully qualified, 18 trainees) participated in five focus groups. Four major themes emerged: (1) why education is needed, (2) perceived educational needs, (3) learning preferences, and (4) evaluation preferences. EoLC was perceived as emotionally and clinically challenging. Educational needs included: identifying patients for palliative care; responsibilities and teamwork; out-of-hours care; having difficult conversations; symptom management; non-malignant conditions; and paediatric palliative care. Participants preferred learning through experience, working alongside specialist palliative care staff, and discussion of real cases, to didactic methods and e-learning. 360° appraisals and behavioural assessment using videoing or simulated interactions were considered problematic. Self-assessment questionnaires and patient and family outcome measures were acceptable, if used and interpreted correctly.

conclusionsGPs require education and support in EoLC, particularly the management of complex clinical care and counselling. GPs value mentoring, peer-support, and experiential learning alongside EoLC specialists over formal training.

Indexed as

LearningTerminal CareAdultAfter-Hours CareAttitude of Health PersonnelEducation, MedicalEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleFocus GroupsGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamPhysician's RoleReferral and ConsultationEducationEnd of Life CareGeneral PracticePalliative CarePrimary Health CareQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID28274216
PMCPMC5343378
OpenAlexW2592500184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.